Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Oakland act now, protect creeks, renters, housing
Act now to stop Oakland from weakening creek protection, making
it easier for developers to build upscale homes in the most sensitive
areas, and from removing the 3% cap on rent increases, opening the way for
bigger increases which would disproportionately hurt low-income people
and result in increased homelessness.
it easier for developers to build upscale homes in the most sensitive
areas, and from removing the 3% cap on rent increases, opening the way for
bigger increases which would disproportionately hurt low-income people
and result in increased homelessness.
Environmental and social issues are converging in the next several Oakland
City Council meetings. Moves are afoot to weaken creek protection, making
it easier for developers to build upscale homes in the most sensitive
areas, and to remove the 3% cap on rent increases, opening the way for
bigger increases which would disproportionately hurt low-income people
and result in increased homelessness.
This is an opportunity for those working on creek, recreation,
environmental restoration, and open space issues to join forces with those
working on housing, smart growth, homeless, renter, and low-income issues
to work together on common concerns, such as getting both developers and
the city to shift from focussing on upscale housing in the most sensitive
habitats to focussing on larger amounts of affordable housing in the
transit-accessible core.
Spread the word to organizations, churches, friends, neighbors, coworkers,
media, etc.
The creek issue is on the City Council agenda for December 11 and the rent
cap is on for December 18, but the time for public action is the meeting a
week before the one in which the agenda item comes up, since by the latter
time the decisions have already been made. So the more people who can speak
at the City Council meetings on December 4 & 11 (creek) and December 11 &
18 (rent) the better, and December 11 is the intersection when activists on
both issues will converge with a rally as big as possible. If you want to
speak to the Council, you should come at 6:45pm or so to get signed up with
the City Clerk. Be prepared to be brief (couple minutes max); you can also give
written comments. City Council meetings start at 7pm Tuesdays at City Hall,
One Frank Ogawa Plaza, near 14th & Broadway, downtown Oakland.
See the end of this message for phone, fax, email, and postal addresses.
For details on the rent cap see http://www.indybay.org/display.php?id=110233,
http://www.indybay.org/display.php?id=104950, phone: 510-763-1085.
Some points you could make:
The CEDA report on the Oakland creek protection ordinance that is on the
agenda for the December 11 City Council meeting should be accepted
only if some conditions and directions are attached to the effort of staff
to develop more specific recommendations.
* Control over creek protection should remain with the Environmental Services
Division. The Building or Planning departments in particular are too close to
developers; we need checks and balances to protect our creeks. The recent
blowout in the Temescal Creek watershed is proof that the existing checks and
balances are not adequate, and we need to strengthen them not weaken them.
* The process for formulating recommended creek protection changes should
be open and accessible to the public. The issues in the report seem to be
entirely based on developer concerns. The greater public interest should
be given greater weight in forming recommendations than one special
interest. Missing from the report are issues of enhancing open space
values, increasing buffer zones to reduce the risk of property damage
from the naturally dynamic behavior of creek channels, expanding
recreational and educational uses of creeks, ecological values such as
habitat and bay water quality, daylighting, and greenways.
* There should be a limit on the amount of resources (including
person-hours) spent on coming up with these recommendations. It doesn't
make sense for the city to spend a lot of effort on tinkering with the
ordinance, since creek-related building permits will generally be limited
to a small minority both geographically and economically.
To address the issue of housing in Oakland, our city resources are better
spent on facilitating larger numbers of lower and moderate income people
to live in the transit-accessible core than on facilitating the building
of a smaller number of luxury houses in the choicest scenic spots and
most sensitive habitats.
* Letting people build too close to creeks is a subsidy, with the
ongoing long-term cost of fixing resulting problems such as erosion
liable to be largely borne by taxpayers and people living downstream.
A free-market system cannot work properly unless the costs are paid by
those who incur them.
We as a city should not be thinking about the one-year cost to builders,
but the hundred-year cost to all of us of dealing with maintenance and
protection of both our natural areas and our built environment.
Staff should develop recommendations for requiring builders to post bonds
and other mechanisms for making sure that they pay all the costs
ultimately incurred by building in sensitive areas, including costs that
may not become obvious until decades of erosion, storms, and earthquakes
have had a cumulative effect. Builders should also pay for those
portions of city resources, including human resources, that relate to
ensuring creeks are protected throughout the planning and building process.
* If more city resources are to be spent on creek issues, then the
overwhelming majority of those resources should be spent on stregthening
creek protection. The lack of resources and expertise devoted to
implementing the ordinance is probably an underlying factor in many of
the problems cited in the report. Staff should spend more effort on
recommendations to address this.
* We need more housing in Oakland, maybe a lot more, and developers
have an important role in providing it. But housing should not come at
the expense of the most sensitive open space and the quality of
environment that makes the area a desirable place to live in the first
place. A city with higher density housing to make room for all of its
creeks flowing openly through natural wild green corridors would be more
desirable still.
* If "designating creeks" means identifying up front all parcels affected
by the ordinance, that would probably be a waste of city resources,
when for 99% of those parcels nobody is trying to build anything and by
the time somebody does decide they want to do something the situation on
the ground could have changed (in a subtle way if there are many years of
gradual erosion, in a significant way if driveways, culverts, or swales
are built near them, in a major way if there's a big earthquake or
landslide). A better alternative is a defined process for obtaining a
determination on an as-needed basis.
More background from Friends of Temescal Creek:
John Russo's report to the City Council Public Safety Committee will not
appear on the agenda as a separate item, only as the minutes from the
Public Safety Committee from November 27th. The public has a right to
speak to the issue as a separate agenda item.
Let's try to get 1000 people to attend on the 11th!.
Public concern has been expressed that the planning department is a poor
choice to be in charge of enforcement of the Creek Protection Ordinance.
They are under tremendous pressure to get building projects approved from
the developers and from the Mayor's policy to add market rate, high-end,
housing in Oakland.
Virtually every City in the East Bay has more stringent regulations on
planning issues, particularly regarding building on slopes, than Oakland.
With respect to balance of interest and power, keeping the CPO enforcement
where it is and considering the suggestion of a fee and penalty structure to
pay for enforcement labor would be a superior solution.
How you can help:
Call John Russo and tell him you will not accept a creek ordinance gutted by
the building department. He is an elected official and has lots of power on
this issue. John Russo was elected with environmental and neighborhood
group votes. He needs to be reminded of this. His allegance to a few spec
housing developers should not influence his thinking.
Call all of the Council people - not just your council people - This
includes people you think are supportive, as well as people who are not
supportive, including Henry Chang.
Contact info from http://www.oaklandnet.com:
(If you're not sure who your councilmember is, call the Registrar at 272-6973.)
City Attorney John Russo
phone 238-3601, fax 238-6500, email jrusso [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Henry Chang (at-large)
phone 238-7082, email cityochang [at] aol.com
Councilmember Jane Brunner, District 1 (north Oakland)
phone 238-7001, fax 238-6910, email jbrunner [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Danny Wan, District 2 (downtown & Trestle Glen)
phone 238-7002, fax 238-6910, email dwan [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Nancy Nadel, District 3 (west Oakland & Lake Merritt)
phone 238-7303, fax 238-6129, email nnadel [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Dick Spees, District 4 (Montclair & Dimond)
phone 238-7004, fax 238-6129, email district4 [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente, District 5 (lower Fruitvale)
phone 238-7005, fax 238-6910, email idelafuente [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Moses Mayne, Jr., District 6 (Mills College)
phone 238-7006, fax 238-6129, email mmayne [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Larry Reid, District 7 (Coliseum)
phone 238-7007, fax 238-6910, email lreid [at] oaklandnet.com
City Manager Robert Bobb
phone 238-3301, fax 238-2223, email citymanager [at] oaklandnet.com
Mayor Jerry Brown
phone 238-3141, fax 238-4731, email officeofthemayor [at] oaklandnet.com
Written letters can be sent to all of these city officials at
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, California 94612
City Council meetings. Moves are afoot to weaken creek protection, making
it easier for developers to build upscale homes in the most sensitive
areas, and to remove the 3% cap on rent increases, opening the way for
bigger increases which would disproportionately hurt low-income people
and result in increased homelessness.
This is an opportunity for those working on creek, recreation,
environmental restoration, and open space issues to join forces with those
working on housing, smart growth, homeless, renter, and low-income issues
to work together on common concerns, such as getting both developers and
the city to shift from focussing on upscale housing in the most sensitive
habitats to focussing on larger amounts of affordable housing in the
transit-accessible core.
Spread the word to organizations, churches, friends, neighbors, coworkers,
media, etc.
The creek issue is on the City Council agenda for December 11 and the rent
cap is on for December 18, but the time for public action is the meeting a
week before the one in which the agenda item comes up, since by the latter
time the decisions have already been made. So the more people who can speak
at the City Council meetings on December 4 & 11 (creek) and December 11 &
18 (rent) the better, and December 11 is the intersection when activists on
both issues will converge with a rally as big as possible. If you want to
speak to the Council, you should come at 6:45pm or so to get signed up with
the City Clerk. Be prepared to be brief (couple minutes max); you can also give
written comments. City Council meetings start at 7pm Tuesdays at City Hall,
One Frank Ogawa Plaza, near 14th & Broadway, downtown Oakland.
See the end of this message for phone, fax, email, and postal addresses.
For details on the rent cap see http://www.indybay.org/display.php?id=110233,
http://www.indybay.org/display.php?id=104950, phone: 510-763-1085.
Some points you could make:
The CEDA report on the Oakland creek protection ordinance that is on the
agenda for the December 11 City Council meeting should be accepted
only if some conditions and directions are attached to the effort of staff
to develop more specific recommendations.
* Control over creek protection should remain with the Environmental Services
Division. The Building or Planning departments in particular are too close to
developers; we need checks and balances to protect our creeks. The recent
blowout in the Temescal Creek watershed is proof that the existing checks and
balances are not adequate, and we need to strengthen them not weaken them.
* The process for formulating recommended creek protection changes should
be open and accessible to the public. The issues in the report seem to be
entirely based on developer concerns. The greater public interest should
be given greater weight in forming recommendations than one special
interest. Missing from the report are issues of enhancing open space
values, increasing buffer zones to reduce the risk of property damage
from the naturally dynamic behavior of creek channels, expanding
recreational and educational uses of creeks, ecological values such as
habitat and bay water quality, daylighting, and greenways.
* There should be a limit on the amount of resources (including
person-hours) spent on coming up with these recommendations. It doesn't
make sense for the city to spend a lot of effort on tinkering with the
ordinance, since creek-related building permits will generally be limited
to a small minority both geographically and economically.
To address the issue of housing in Oakland, our city resources are better
spent on facilitating larger numbers of lower and moderate income people
to live in the transit-accessible core than on facilitating the building
of a smaller number of luxury houses in the choicest scenic spots and
most sensitive habitats.
* Letting people build too close to creeks is a subsidy, with the
ongoing long-term cost of fixing resulting problems such as erosion
liable to be largely borne by taxpayers and people living downstream.
A free-market system cannot work properly unless the costs are paid by
those who incur them.
We as a city should not be thinking about the one-year cost to builders,
but the hundred-year cost to all of us of dealing with maintenance and
protection of both our natural areas and our built environment.
Staff should develop recommendations for requiring builders to post bonds
and other mechanisms for making sure that they pay all the costs
ultimately incurred by building in sensitive areas, including costs that
may not become obvious until decades of erosion, storms, and earthquakes
have had a cumulative effect. Builders should also pay for those
portions of city resources, including human resources, that relate to
ensuring creeks are protected throughout the planning and building process.
* If more city resources are to be spent on creek issues, then the
overwhelming majority of those resources should be spent on stregthening
creek protection. The lack of resources and expertise devoted to
implementing the ordinance is probably an underlying factor in many of
the problems cited in the report. Staff should spend more effort on
recommendations to address this.
* We need more housing in Oakland, maybe a lot more, and developers
have an important role in providing it. But housing should not come at
the expense of the most sensitive open space and the quality of
environment that makes the area a desirable place to live in the first
place. A city with higher density housing to make room for all of its
creeks flowing openly through natural wild green corridors would be more
desirable still.
* If "designating creeks" means identifying up front all parcels affected
by the ordinance, that would probably be a waste of city resources,
when for 99% of those parcels nobody is trying to build anything and by
the time somebody does decide they want to do something the situation on
the ground could have changed (in a subtle way if there are many years of
gradual erosion, in a significant way if driveways, culverts, or swales
are built near them, in a major way if there's a big earthquake or
landslide). A better alternative is a defined process for obtaining a
determination on an as-needed basis.
More background from Friends of Temescal Creek:
John Russo's report to the City Council Public Safety Committee will not
appear on the agenda as a separate item, only as the minutes from the
Public Safety Committee from November 27th. The public has a right to
speak to the issue as a separate agenda item.
Let's try to get 1000 people to attend on the 11th!.
Public concern has been expressed that the planning department is a poor
choice to be in charge of enforcement of the Creek Protection Ordinance.
They are under tremendous pressure to get building projects approved from
the developers and from the Mayor's policy to add market rate, high-end,
housing in Oakland.
Virtually every City in the East Bay has more stringent regulations on
planning issues, particularly regarding building on slopes, than Oakland.
With respect to balance of interest and power, keeping the CPO enforcement
where it is and considering the suggestion of a fee and penalty structure to
pay for enforcement labor would be a superior solution.
How you can help:
Call John Russo and tell him you will not accept a creek ordinance gutted by
the building department. He is an elected official and has lots of power on
this issue. John Russo was elected with environmental and neighborhood
group votes. He needs to be reminded of this. His allegance to a few spec
housing developers should not influence his thinking.
Call all of the Council people - not just your council people - This
includes people you think are supportive, as well as people who are not
supportive, including Henry Chang.
Contact info from http://www.oaklandnet.com:
(If you're not sure who your councilmember is, call the Registrar at 272-6973.)
City Attorney John Russo
phone 238-3601, fax 238-6500, email jrusso [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Henry Chang (at-large)
phone 238-7082, email cityochang [at] aol.com
Councilmember Jane Brunner, District 1 (north Oakland)
phone 238-7001, fax 238-6910, email jbrunner [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Danny Wan, District 2 (downtown & Trestle Glen)
phone 238-7002, fax 238-6910, email dwan [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Nancy Nadel, District 3 (west Oakland & Lake Merritt)
phone 238-7303, fax 238-6129, email nnadel [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Dick Spees, District 4 (Montclair & Dimond)
phone 238-7004, fax 238-6129, email district4 [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Ignacio De La Fuente, District 5 (lower Fruitvale)
phone 238-7005, fax 238-6910, email idelafuente [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Moses Mayne, Jr., District 6 (Mills College)
phone 238-7006, fax 238-6129, email mmayne [at] oaklandnet.com
Councilmember Larry Reid, District 7 (Coliseum)
phone 238-7007, fax 238-6910, email lreid [at] oaklandnet.com
City Manager Robert Bobb
phone 238-3301, fax 238-2223, email citymanager [at] oaklandnet.com
Mayor Jerry Brown
phone 238-3141, fax 238-4731, email officeofthemayor [at] oaklandnet.com
Written letters can be sent to all of these city officials at
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, California 94612
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$240.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
http://www.indybay.org/2001/12/111398.php
OAKLAND TENANTS UNION STILL ENMESHED IN SPEES TASK FORCE DEAL TO RAISE OAKLAND RENTS.
By Lynda Carson 12/5/01
Oakland,Ca-In a most recently leaked e-mail out of the Oakland Tenants Union, it reveals that they are still knee deep in working with Oakland Councilman Dick Spees and his office,to raise the rents on Oakland Renters with the CPI/less shelter scheme, and to accelerate rent increases through the Rent Program by way of the New Mediation Program. Protest's have recently taken place upon the steps of Oakland City Hall and in the form of opposition to the Oakland Tenants Union scheme with the landlords, which have proven to be useless in convincing James Vann
or Eddie Ytuarte that they do not have community support for their actions.
In a hasty writen e-mail dated December 3, 2001, Eddie Ytuarte of the Oakland Tenants Union is still trying to rally the troops to salvage the deal between the landlords
and the Oakland Tenants Union. Not long ago Eddie Ytuarte
personally assured SF.INDY Media readers that he would let them know when C.E.D.A. or the Council Members would vote upon the Task Force Deal. As of yet Mr. Ytuarte has not kept his word. Ytuarte's below leaked e-mail makes no mention of seeking Oaklanders to oppose the deal between the landlords and the Oakland Tenants Union which is what is to be voted upon, but now Ytuarte does a bait and switch routine and urges people to push for Just Cause instead, which is not anything that is up for consideration by the Council. It should be noted at this point that documents of the Task Force reveal that when the Rent Board Task Force first came together to come up with the deal heading to the Oakland City Council, it was James Vann of the Oakland Tenants Union who agreed with the landlords that Just Cause will not be a part of the Task Force Proposals to be voted upon.
Politics and bedfellows are a strange blend in the City of Oakland, and especially when it turns out to be the landlord lobby and the Oakland Tenants Union making the deals that are harmful to the renters of Oakland. Presently
a search is underway to determine if Mr.Ytuarte is somehow related to Benedict Arnold.
The plan for many in Oakland is to continue to oppose the deal made between the Oakland Tenants Union and the landlord lobby known as the Rent Board Task Force Proposals. Oakland renters desperately are trying to save Oaklands annual 3% rent cap which the Oakland Tenants Union are trying to replace with the CPI/less shelter formula. Already this week people have been handing out hundreds of flyers downtown Oakland to gain support of renters to save 3% rent cap.
Activists are still urging renters to contact all the Council Members in an effort to convince them that the 3% rent cap must remain in place until the Housing Crisis comes to an end in the Bay Area. A lsit of doctors who oppose the lifting of the rent cap has already reached the Office of Oakland Council Members. Many Oaklanders question if the Oakland Tenants Union will ever join Oakland renters in the struggle to save the rent cap, and others wonder why the Tenants Union sold out the renters of Oakland with their slippery deal made with the landlords and Councilman (tricky) Dick Spees. As usual politics in Oakland get down and dirty.
Below is the leaked e-mail from Eddie Ytuarte of the Oakland Tenants Union dated Dec 3, 2001.
**************************************
To: caacorns [at] acorn.org, Julie [at] kidsfirstoakland.org, Electricshadows [at] earthlink.net, Benz38277 [at] aol.com, eballiance [at] aol.com, Zumac [at] aol.com, jbarnett [at] policy.link, ajbefort [at] california.com, maria [at] ebho.org, Benz38277 [at] yahoo.com, cbetcher [at] earthlink.net, Sancofeur [at] msn.com, brett [at] brettkocher.com, herb [at] kransdorf.com, dkadlecek [at] igc.org, cckaufman [at] earthlink.net, KKean30 [at] aol.com, killerleslie [at] yahoo.com, hfincke [at] mindspring.com, danfontes [at] yahoo.com, foster_marshall [at] yahoo.com, Alfonso8888 [at] aol.com, adamjg [at] mindspring.com, sean [at] ebho.org, rai2hutch [at] aol.com, tahrir27 [at] yahoo.com, Wchorneau [at] igc.org, Cracecc [at] altavista.com, chowwang [at] hotmail.com, breonna [at] wilsonriles.org, obit [at] mindspring.com, caliebbe [at] prodigy.net, EddieFair [at] juno.com
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 14:20:07 -0800
Subject: Another dealay for the Rent Ordinance
From: Edward Ytuarte <eddiefair [at] juno.com>
TO: HOUSING ACTIVISTS AND OTHER INTERESTED PEOPLE
FROM: Eddie Ytuarte, Oakland Tenants Union
I received an e-mail from Sean O'Shea, assistant to councilmember Spees. She said that the rent ordianace changes (including the rental adustment allowance) will not go to the CEDA committee of the city council until
December 18. The whole package will then go to the the full city council sometime in January.
the Rent Arbitration Program (of the city of Oakland) has released some figures showing usage for that program in the first three quarters of the year. the Figures seem to indicate that many people are going to that program
for assistance and or information and that 30-day eviction notices are really high.
The CEDA committee meets at 10:30 a..m. on the 18th. (knock on wood) So make plans to show up and be prepared to tell the committee that Just Cause
has to happen in Oakland.
*********************************************
What exactly is the big conspiracy? Does it involve anyone other than you, John Vann and Eddie Ytuarte?
For what it's worth. I support a Just Cause initiative,
and the 3% rent cap. As for a bait and switch scam going on by the Oakland Tenants Union? It boils down to this. Do you have people pushing for Just Cause when the real issue at hand is trying to save the 3% rent cap, or do you have people supporting the deal between the landlord lobby and the Oakland Tenants Union for their CPI/less shelter scheme that will raise the rents? I suspect these issues are complicated enough as is, and now with the new twist to throw Just Cause into the picture as a means to rally support for the Oakland Tenants Union, this gets real devious. As for eddies e-mail to others, whats there to comment on? Nothing...It's a so-called free country, and
I would not wish to get in the way of any discussions for a Just Cause...Keep in mind;Just Cause is not what is coming up for a vote though, and to misdirect others into believing that it is up for a vote during the near term future makes for a poor judgement upon those caught up into such a scheme....Their treading into deep waters on this one... LC
I'm just wondering whether any of these intermovement conflicts is detracting from the job at hand: I mean, don;t you all agree on 90% of the stuff anyway? Why sweat the other 10%? Ideological purity? The person without sin please cast the first stone!
No one can help you Um. Don't worry about it. Your
not the only lost cause on earth...They say ignorance is
bliss, and your full of it....